Is there a way to persist no data at all in a test, but just temporary until the test completes? With OSQL Test Double Framework we can replace single tables, but often APIs are used where we don't know which tables will be touched (e.g. create a transport).
E.g. imagine implementations for ZIF_MY_BUSINESS_OBJECT and ZIF_MY_API. The unit tests for the business object validate that you cannot call e.g. send( ) before mv_valid = abap_true (set by init( )).
The unit tests of ZIF_MY_API use test double to replace ZIF_MY_BUSINESS_OBJECT. So I test assumptions like the following flow
METHOD ZIF_MY_API~perform_send.
" NOTE: THIS ONLY WORKS IN PROD WHEN ->init was called before, here in ZIF_MY_API~start!!
mo_business_obj->load_or_exception( ).
mo_business_obj->validate_or_exception( ).
mo_business_obj->send( ).
ENDMETHOD.
In the test I can just say the mock mo_business_obj->validate( ) will throw an exception. I cannot test that a call to ZIF_MY_API~start( ) will setup the mo_business_obj correctly (else I'd depend on the implementation of mo_business_obj).
So I see no other way to write an full integration test for
ZIF_MY_API~start( )
ZIF_MY_API~perform_send( )
Excpect: NO ERROR
ZIF_MY_API~perform_send( )
Excpect: ERROR
But this will persist all kind of data, which I don't need in my system. So back to the original question: My unit tests test the code itself, not how they integrate. The lowest level will mock out the persistency. But as soon as I want to test the interaction, data will be persisted.
Is there a way to instruct the OSQL Test Double Framework to redirect every OSQL in the session
Would it be better to write an integration test where I inject a persistency interface instead? So everything is production code, except the wrapper interface of the persistency?
Related
I don't know whether to use unit or integration tests for what I am wanting to test in my Grails 2.2.3 application. I want to run some tests against like this:
#TestFor(Student)
#Mock(Student)
class StudentTests {
void testFoundStudent() {
def s = Student.findById(myId)
assert s != null
assert s.firstName = 'Grant'
assert s.lastName = 'McConnaughey'
}
}
This is going to require the use of our test database, so would that make it an integration test? When I run this code as a unit test it fails at assert s != null. Which means it isn't using our database, because it SHOULD find a student with that ID.
In Grails unit test you can test domain class interactions using Gorm and behind the scene Grails will use in-memory database(an implementation of a ConcurrentHashMap) to mimic this behavior here. So yes you get null because that student does not exist in in-memory database and you need to insert that data first.
Student.findOrSaveWhere (firstName: 'Grant',lastName : 'McConnaughey')
In your example, if the intention is to test the existence of that data you need to use integration test and connect it to your database using datasource.groovy , which is really not a good idea unless you have a good reason to test your data.
If you are trying to test def s = Student.findById(myId) again that is not adding any value as that is Grails dynamic finder and you probably need to trust the framework you are using.
However, in general
Unit tests are typically run without the presence of physical
resources that involve I/O such databases, socket connections or
files link
I hope this helps
I have created following four tests in a Test class that tests a findCompany() method of a CompanyService.
#Test
public void findCompany_CompanyIdIsZero() {
exception.expect(IllegalArgumentException.class);
companyService.findCompany(0);
}
#Test
public void findCompany_CompanyIdIsNegative() {
exception.expect(IllegalArgumentException.class);
companyService.findCompany(-100);
}
#Test
public void findCompany_CompanyIdDoesntExistInDatabase() {
Company storedCompany = companyService.findCompany(100000);
assertNull(storedCompany1);
}
#Test
public void findCompany_CompanyIdExistsInDatabase() {
Company company = new Company("FAL", "Falahaar");
companyService.addCompany(company);
Company storedCompany1 = companyService.findCompany(company.getId());
assertNotNull(storedCompany1);
}
My understanding says that the first three of these are unit tests. They test the behavior of the findCompany() method, checking how the method will respond on different inputs.
The fourth test, though placed in the same class, actually seems to be an integration test to me. It requires a Company to be added to the database first, so that it can be found later on. This introduces external dependencies - addCompany() and database.
Am I going right? If yes, then how should I unit test finding an existing object? Just mock the service to "find" one? I think that kills the intent of the test.
I appreciate any guidance here.
I look at it this way: the "unit" you are testing here is the CompanyService. In this sense all of your tests look like unit tests to me. Underneath your service, though, there may be another service (you mention a database) that this test is also exercising? This could start to blur the lines with integration testing a bit, but you have to ask yourself if it matters. You could stub out any such underlying service, and you may want to if:
The underlying service is slow to set up or use, making your unit tests too slow.
You want to be sure the behaviour of this test is unaffected by the underlying service - i.e. this test should only fail if there is a bug in CompanyService.
In my experience, provided the underlying service is fast enough I don't worry too much about my unit test relying on it. I don't mind a bit of integration leaking into my unit tests, as it has benefits (more integration coverage) and rarely causes a problem. If it does cause problems you can always come back to it and add stubbing to improve the isolation.
[1,2,3,4] could be unit-based (mocked | not mocked) and integration-based tests. It depends what you want to test.
Why use mocking? As Jason Sankey said ...test only service tier not underlaying tier.
Why use mocking? Your bussiness logic can have most various forms. So you can write several test for one service method, eg. create person (no address - exception, no bank account - exception, person does not have filled not-null attributes - exception).
Can you imagine that each test requested database in order to test all possibility exception states (no adress, no bank account etc.)? There is too much work to fill database in order to test all exception states. Why not to use mocked objects which eg. act like 'crippled' objects which do not contains expected values. Each test construct own 'crippled' mock object.
Mocking various states === your test will be simply as possible because each test method will be test only one state. These test will be clear and easy to understand and maintance. This is one of goals which I want to reach if I write a test.
I've got a bunch of methods in my application service layer that are doing things like this:
public void Execute(PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand command)
{
var order = _repository.Load(command.OrderId);
order.PlaceOnHold();
_repository.Save(order);
}
And at present, I have a bunch of unit tests like this:
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepository()
{
var repository = new Mock<IOrderRepository>();
const int orderId = 1;
var order = new Mock<IOrder>();
repository.Setup(r => r.Load(orderId)).Returns(order.Object);
var command = new PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand(orderId);
var service = new OrderService(repository.Object);
service.Execute(command);
repository.Verify(r => r.Load(It.Is<int>(x => x == orderId)), Times.Exactly(1));
}
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_CallsPlaceOnHold()
{
/* blah blah */
}
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_SavesOrderToRepository()
{
/* blah blah */
}
It seems to be debatable whether these unit tests add value that's worth the effort. I'm quite sure that the application service layer should be integration tested, though.
Should the application service layer be tested to this level of granularity, or are integration tests sufficient?
I'd write a unit test despite there also being an integration test. However, I'd likely make the test much simpler by eliminating the mocking framework, writing my own simple mock, and then combining all those tests to check that the the order in the mock repository was on hold.
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepository()
{
const int orderId = 1;
var repository = new MyMockRepository();
repository.save(new MyMockOrder(orderId));
var command = new PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand(orderId);
var service = new OrderService(repository);
service.Execute(command);
Assert.IsTrue(repository.getOrder(orderId).isOnHold());
}
There's really no need to check to be sure that load and/or save is called. Instead I'd just make sure that the only way that MyMockRepository will return the updated order is if load and save are called.
This kind of simplification is one of the reasons that I usually don't use mocking frameworks. It seems to me that you have much better control over your tests, and a much easier time writing them, if you write your own mocks.
Exactly: it's debatable! It's really good that you are weighing the expense/effort of writing and maintaining your test against the value it will bring you - and that's exactly the consideration you should make for every test you write. Often I see tests written for the sake of testing and thereby only adding ballast to the code base.
As a guideline I usually take that I want a full integration test of every important successful scenario/use case. Other tests I'll write are for parts of the code that are likely to break with future changes, or have broken in the past. And that is definitely not all code. That's where your judgement and insight in the system and requirements comes into play.
Assuming that you have an (integration) test for service.Execute(placeOrderOnHoldCommand), I'm not really sure if it adds value to test if the service loads an order from the repository exactly once. But it could be! For instance when your service previously had a nasty bug that would hit the repository ten times for a single order, causing performance issues (just making it up). In that case, I'd rename the test to PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepositoryExactlyOnce().
So for each and every test you have to decide for yourself ... hope that helps.
Notes:
The tests you show can be perfectly valid and look well written.
Your test sequence methods seems to be inspired on the way the Execute(...) method is currently implemented. When you structure your test this way, it could be that you are tying yourself to a specific implementation. This way, tests can actually make it harder to change - make sure you're only testing the important external behavior of your class.
I usually write a single integration test of the primary scenario. By primary scenario i mean the successful path of all the code being tested. Then I write unit tests of all the other scenarios like checking all the cases in a switch, testing exception and so forth.
I think it is important to have both and yes it is possible to test it all with integration tests only, but that makes your tests long running and harder to debug. In average I think I have 10 unit tests per integration test.
I don't bother to test methods with one-liners unless something bussines logic-like happens in that line.
Update: Just to make it clear, cause I'm doing test-driven development I always write the unit tests first and typically do the integration test at the end.
I have this simple method which calls the TFS (Team foundation server) API to get WorkItemCollection object. I have just converted in to an entity class and also added it in cache. As you can see this is very simple.
How should i unit test this method. Only the important bit it does is calls TFS API. Is it worth testing such methods? If yes then how should we test it?
One way I can think is I can mock call to Query.QueryWorkItemStore(query) and return an object of type “WorkItemCollection” and see finally this method converts “WorkItemCollection” to List. And check if it was added to cache or not.
Also as I am using dependency injection pattern her so I am injecting dependency for
cache
Query
Should I only pass dependency of mocked type (Using MOQ) or I should pass proper class type.
public virtual List<Sprint> Sprint(string query)
{
List<Sprint> sprints =
Cache.Get<List<Sprint>>(query);
if (sprints == null)
{
WorkItemCollection items =
Query.QueryWorkItemStore(query);
sprints = new List<Sprint>();
foreach (WorkItem i in items)
{
Sprint sprint = new Sprint
{
ID = i.Id,
IterationPath = i.IterationPath,
AreaPath = i.AreaPath,
Title = i.Title,
State = i.State,
Goal = i.Description,
};
sprints.Add(sprint);
}
Cache.Add(sprints, query,
this.CacheExpiryInterval);
}
return sprints;
}
Should I only pass dependency of mocked type (Using MOQ) or I should pass proper class type.
In your unit tests, you should pass a mock. There are several reasons:
A mock is transparent: it allows you to check that the code under test did the right thing with the mock.
A mock gives you full control, allowing you to test scenarios that are difficult or impossible to create with the real server (e.g. throw IOException)
A mock is predictable. A real server is not - it may not even be available when you run your tests.
Things you do on a mock don't influence the outside world. You don't want to change data or crash the server by running your tests.
A test with mocks is faster. No connection to the server or real database queries have to be made.
That being said, automated integration tests which include a real server are also very useful. You just have to keep in mind that they will have lower code coverage, will be more fragile, and will be more expensive to create/run/maintain. Keep your unit tests and your integration tests separate.
edit: some collaborator objects like your Cache object may also be very unit-test friendly. If they have the same advantages as that of a mock that I list above, then you don't need to create a mock. For example, you typically don't need to mock a collection.
This is a tough one because not too many people use Pex & Moles or so I think (even though Pex is a really great product - much better than any other unit testing tool)
I have a Data project that has a very simple model with just one entity (DBItem). I've also written a DBRepository within this project, that manipulates this EF model. Repository has a method called GetItems() that returns a list of business layer items (BLItem) and looks similar to this (simplified example):
public IList<BLItem> GetItems()
{
using (var ctx = new EFContext("name=MyWebConfigConnectionName"))
{
DateTime limit = DateTime.Today.AddDays(-10);
IList<DBItem> result = ctx.Items.Where(i => i.Changed > limit).ToList();
return result.ConvertAll(i => i.ToBusinessObject());
}
}
So now I'd like to create some unit tests for this particular method. I'm using Pex & Moles. I created my moles and stubs for my EF object context.
I would like to write parametrised unit test (I know I've first written my production code, but I had to, since I'm testing Pex & Moles) that tests that this method returns valid list of items.
This is my test class:
[PexClass]
public class RepoTest
{
[PexMethod]
public void GetItemsTest(ObjectSet<DBItem> items)
{
MEFContext.ConstructorString = (#this, name) => {
var mole = new SEFContext();
};
DBRepository repo = new DBRepository();
IList<BLItem> result = repo.GetItems();
IList<DBItem> manual = items.Where(i => i.Changed > DateTime.Today.AddDays(-10));
if (result.Count != manual.Count)
{
throw new Exception();
}
}
}
Then I run Pex Explorations for this particular parametrised unit test, but I get an error path bounds exceeded. Pex starts this test by providing null to this test method (so items = null). This is the code, that Pex is running:
[Test]
[PexGeneratedBy(typeof(RepoTest))]
[Ignore("the test state was: path bounds exceeded")]
public void DBRepository_GetTasks22301()
{
this.GetItemsTest((ObjectSet<DBItem>)null);
}
This was additional comment provided by Pex:
The test case ran too long for these inputs, and Pex stopped the analysis. Please notice: The method Oblivious.Data.Test.Repositories.TaskRepositoryTest.b__0 was called 50 times; please check that the code is not stuck in an infinite loop or recursion. Otherwise, click on 'Set MaxStack=200', and run Pex again.
Update attribute [PexMethod(MaxStack = 200)]
Question
Am I doing this the correct way or not? Should I use EFContext stub instead? Do I have to add additional attributes to test method so Moles host will be running (I'm not sure it does now). I'm running just Pex & Moles. No VS test or nUnit or anything else.
I guess I should probably set some limit to Pex how many items should it provide for this particular test method.
Moles is not designed to test the parts of your application that have external dependencies (e.g. file access, network access, database access, etc). Instead, Moles allows you to mock these parts of your app so that way you can do true unit testing on the parts that don't have external dependencies.
So I think you should just mock your EF objects and queries, e.g., by creating in-memory lists and having query methods return fake data from those lists based on whatever criteria is relevant.
I am just getting to grips with pex also ... my issues surrounded me wanting to use it with moq ;)
anyway ...
I have some methods similar to your that have the same problem. When i increased the max they went away. Presumably pex was satisfied that it had sufficiently explored the branches. I have methods where i have had to increase the timeout on the code contract validation also.
One thing that you should probably be doign though is passing in all the dependant objects as parameters ... ie dont instantiate the repo in the method but pass it in.
A general problem you have is that you are instantiating big objects in your method. I do the same in my DAL classes, but then i am not tryign to unit test them in isolation. I build up datasets and use this to test my data access code against.
I use pex on my business logic and objects.
If i were to try and test my DAL code id have to use IOC to pass the datacontext into the methods - which would then make testing possible as you can mock the data context.
You should use Entity Framework Repository Pattern: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/database/ImplRepositoryPatternEF.aspx